P.W. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

P.W. v. State

135 So. 3d 583, 2014 WL 1415214, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 5457

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 14, 2014

DocketNo. 1D13-4696

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 135 So. 3d 583 (P.W. v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

P.W. v. State, 135 So. 3d 583, 2014 WL 1415214, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 5457 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of the amended disposition order adjudicating her delinquent and committing her to the custody of the Department of Juvenile Justice for placement in a moderate-risk residential program. Appellant does not challenge— and, thus, we affirm — the adjudication of delinquency. Appellant raises two issues concerning her commitment: (1) the trial court failed to comply with E.A.R. v. State, 4 So.3d 614 (Fla.2009), when departing from the recommendation of probation in the predisposition report; and (2) the trial court failed to make written findings to support placement at the moderate-risk residential restrictiveness level as required by section 985.441(2)(d), Florida Statutes. We affirm the first issue based upon B.K.A. v. State, 122 So.3d 928 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013), and J.B.S. v. State, 90 So.3d 961 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). We reverse the second issue based upon the State’s confession of error, and we remand for the trial court to make written findings in compliance with section 985.441(2)(d). See K.M.H. v. State, 91 So.3d 262 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012),

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED with directions.

ROBERTS, WETHERELL, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of the amended disposition order adjudicating her delinquent and committing her to the custody of the Department of Juvenile Justice for placement in a moderate-risk residential program. Appellant does not challenge— and, thus, we affirm — the adjudication of delinquency. Appellant raises two issues concerning her commitment: (1) the trial court failed to comply with E.A.R. v. State, 4 So.3d 614 (Fla.2009), when departing from the recommendation of probation in the predisposition report; and (2) the trial court failed to make written findings to support placement at the moderate-risk residential restrictiveness level as required by section 985.441(2)(d), Florida Statutes. We affirm the first issue based upon B.K.A. v. State, 122 So.3d 928 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013), and J.B.S. v. State, 90 So.3d 961 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). We reverse the second issue based upon the State’s confession of error, and we remand for the trial court to make written findings in compliance with section 985.441(2)(d). See K.M.H. v. State, 91 So.3d 262 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012),

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED with directions.

ROBERTS, WETHERELL, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 So. 3d 583, 2014 WL 1415214, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 5457, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pw-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack